U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley is making trouble – again — over the sweet financial deal colleges get as a result of their non-profit status. This time he is picking on federal tax rules that he says give colleges an unfair way to (indirectly) grow investments at taxpayer expense. (Read the Congressional Budget Office report here).

For Grassley, who has challenged college financial practices, including endowment spending and big-time sports funding, this is simply another step into a familiar batter’s box.

A key college defender — Mintz Levin lawyer Charles A. Samuels, who represents an organization that helps colleges issue bonds — says the last thing higher education needs right now is new limits on tax-exempt financing.

Samuels is right. But here’s the problem: This latest push-back from colleges comes just weeks after the NCAA agreed to a $10.8 billion deal with CBS to broadcast the men’s basketball tournament, funneling $740 million a year to member colleges.

The dollars, of course, were reason for athletic departments – including women’s coaches – to celebrate (more funding for everyone). And objectively, who wants to turn away cash?

What both of these items represent, however, is a fundamental challenge to colleges’ role as non-profit, educational, public-good-centered institutions with a responsibility to gender-equitable values. They represent the continued financial pressure toward centers of profit.

If colleges want the business benefits of non-profit status (and what’s wrong with that?) then they should fairly and equally promote the interests of male and female students. But the lopsided drive to peddle men’s sports “products” counters that very principle. When men’s sports operate on a separate plane from female sports — regardless of what Title IX says — there is an echo effect for every male and female student on campus. It is not just about sports.

While just 11 percent of the construction that employs these tax-exempt bonds is for athletic facilities (plus another 10 percent for “equipment”), who are these building for, exactly? Maybe men’s so-called revenue-producing sports?

The point here is not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or to fuss – yet again – about the monstrous over-promotion of men’s sports like NCAA basketball, but to pause long enough to ask the question: How is this all right? How does this practice of amping up broadcast of men’s basketball serve the public good?

How does using public money and broadcast dollars to house, support, and develop a farm team for NBA players (most of whom will never graduate and may not stay past freshman year) serve the male and female student bodies of these colleges?

Colleges do deserve public benefits, but those come with responsibilities to play fair.

By Laura Pappano

As a Sports Illustrated subscriber, I just want to offer a big “Thank You” for all the recent coverage of Lindsey Vonn – or should I say “un”-coverage?

If crazy feminists got all in a wad about last week’s cover photo of Vonn, I can only imagine what they think now that she’s on the slopes in ski boots – and a bikini!

Fortunately, I’m one of those fans grateful to see female athletes get any sort of attention, so seeing four Olympians – snowboarders Hannah Teter, and Clair Bidez and skiers Vonn and Lacy Schnoor – all oiled up for the SI Swimsuit issue looked like a gold medal move to me.

The way I see it, if we get enough guys paying attention (er stalking) their favorite sexy female athletes, we should see the Nielsen ratings for women’s sporting events take off. Wasn’t it Sepp Blatter, FIFA president, who pointed out that women should wear “more feminine” uniforms and tighter shorts to boost fan interest?

The logic is obvious: While people are busy checking out the players’ physical attributes they will OH BY THE WAY notice that, geez, there is some good athletic play going on. Build the fan base one string bikini at a time.

The matter, of course, is that if women are going play sports, they should be providing entertainment – and serious athletic performance is, apparently, not entertainment enough.

I say, apply the Powell Doctrine to sex appeal in women’s sports. Don’t just appear sexy on occasion, but – heck – be all about sexy. Swimsuit calendars – the Women’s Professional Squash Association just made one – should be mandatory for professional leagues.

College teams should dive in, too (pardon the pun). Why should men’s football and basketball monopolize media attention when young females are playing with balls? When I tune into ESPN2, I’d like to see a women’s college basketball game (at a time other than noon). So do up the hair, get that make-up straight and, for gosh sake, pare down the fabric on those uniforms!

It could even be a smart move to do what they did in the 1950s: Hold half-time beauty pageant among players, crowning one “Queen of the Court.” (way better than MVP’s) And maybe instead of having an NCAA playoff bracket, we could hold a giant beauty pageant with – yes! – a swimsuit competition. (Then we would really know which teams were worth watching.)

So, thanks, SI, for exposing readers to some skilled female athletes ahead of the Winter Olympics. I can hardly wait for your March Madness preview issue!

My final college softball season starts in three weeks. Time to worry about my makeup and hair?

Softball may be a serious, competitive, slide-in-the-dirt sport, but as it grows in popularity (and TV interest), there is heightened attention — to looking good.

When I tuned into the Women’s College World Series on ESPN at the end of last season, it hit me: The players sported a perfect ponytails, sparkly headbands and ribbons — and enough layers of make-up to suit them for a magazine spread. From the shoulders up, they were vying for Miss Teen USA, not an NCAA national title.

One has only to read the coverage to discover that, like competitors in a beauty pageant, players actually schedule pre-game time for hair and makeup.

These women are fierce competitors and I know they mean business. We may be accustomed to noting perfect hair and makeup in gymnastics, but in women’s softball? (check out a few photos here, here, here, and here). Does Derek Jeter take time for foundation and bronzer before stepping onto the field?

Why must  female softball players reinforce their “girly” side, particularly for ESPN cameras? Doesn’t this hinder the message of female athletic empowerment that the Women’s College World Series is meant to convey?

Sure, we are all aware of the stereotypical line about softball –  that everyone is lesbian, that we are “dykes on spikes.” Why is it that no matter what sport women participate in that still today — it’s 2010! — gender and sexuality must take center stage over raw talent, athletic ability — and the drama of the game?

Wearing gobs of makeup (look at stills or clips and it’s not just a swipe of blush) during a national championship does not prove some quasi-feminist point that you can be cute and athletic at the same time. Rather, it reveals to the girls who are watching that no matter how strong, fast, talented or competitive they are that how they look matters most.  The Women’s College World Series is an opportunity to collapse female stereotypes of passivity and weakness, yet it’s become a stage to codify and perpetuate them.

And it’s not just softball. Just in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics, Lancome has unveiled a cosmetic line apparently inspired by the female athletes who will be competing for a gold medal.

Please, fellow female athletes, let’s stop getting dolled up to compete. Leave heavy make-up and perfect hair for dinner or the runway — not the diamond.

Sure, research shows that high school girls who play sports are less likely than their non-athletic peers to get pregnant. But sometimes it happens.

When it does, schools and districts need fair and sensible policies that allow girls (with guidance from a physician) to continue to compete and participate, particularly early in the pregnancy.

For Mackenzie McCollum, a 17-year-old senior at Arlington Heights High School in Fort Worth, Texas and the starting setter on the school’s volleyball team, the trauma of discovering that she was pregnant was compounded by school officials whose misdirected response has left her and her mother battling the district and raising the profile of pregnant athletes’ rights. According to a report on ESPN, McCollum was at times barred from the team and then allowed to play, but given dramatically reduced playing time, even though she was in her first trimester of pregnancy and had the written support of her physician.  (Read and watch the story here).

Holly Powell Kennedy, Helen Varney Professor of Midwifery at the Yale School of Nursing, says McCollum, “received very appropriate advice from her clinician and should be able to continue with sports while pregnant…In fact, it is likely to be beneficial in many ways…”

But as Kennedy points out, this is more than a health matter. “Of course,” she writes, “the umbrella is the big ‘Scarlet A’!”

For most teenage girls, discovering you are pregnant is an unwelcome surprise. It is life-changing and identity-altering. More than 150 years after we met Hester Prynne, out-of-wedlock girls who get pregnant are still shamed. McCollum, who chose not to end the pregnancy because of her faith, bears the burden of stares in the hallways and whispered judgments.

It’s troubling when school officials reveal their ignorance precisely when a student most needs sensible support. Pregnancy is NOT a state of incapacity. McCollum’s future will be more challenging, but she is no less of a student or an athlete than she was last year. Like any high school senior, she should not stop doing the things that are central to her self-worth, identity, and—yes – physical and emotional health.

Athletes do, have, and will get pregnant (even when it’s not convenient). Early last year the NCAA issued rules protecting pregnant college athletes from losing scholarship support after reports of athletes hiding their pregnancies. (see the full policy here.)

– Ashley Shields played basketball at Northwestern Mississippi Community College while eight months pregnant. She gave birth to a healthy son.

– Syracuse University basketball player Fantasia Goodwin, who hid her pregnancy until just before the last game of the season, gave birth to a healthy daughter April 19, 2007.

– In 2003, Connie Neal played eleven games before she told University of Louisville coaches she was pregnant. Her last game: December 20th. She gave birth her to daughter Jan. 31.

The NCAA policy points out that “most pregnant athletes with normal pregnancies can safely continue to participate in team activities, with progressive modifications, as the pregnancy develops past the 14th week.”

Surely high school volleyball (even in Texas) isn’t as demanding as NCAA play. This thoughtful, detailed, and well-footnoted policy is easily find-able on the web. Surely McCollum could have received more enlightened support from Arlington Heights officials.

Or maybe they should be wearing an “A” for “Addled.”

Lebanon Valley College photo

By Laura Pappano

The phrase “college football” evokes testosterone-charged pre-U.S. Marine-style intensity and mammoth bodies colliding at ridiculously odd angles and high speeds.

That may accurately describe DI teams on Saturday TV or at bowl game time, but how about the 0-6 Amcats at Anna Maria college, outscored this season 302-90? (And the college just spent $2 million to build “Amcat Field” with real NFL turf!)

The team’s problem? Many players are “undersized.” On the upside, the school draws more tuition-paying student/players, kids get to play college football – and people love to watch and cheer on Saturday afternoon.

On some campuses, in other words, football is more about the “event” than about the quality of play. It is this community-enhancing aspect we hear about when colleges start football teams, which they have been doing in recent years.

According to an NCAA study, even as wrestling lost a net of 101 teams between the 1988-1989 academic year and 2006-2007, football added 78 teams (some football teams were cut; the net gain is 31 over that time).

But guess what? Most of the new teams – 49 of them – have been in Division III. (And this current year – not part of the study – is turning out to be a popular time for starting new football programs, the Amcats among them.)

So why can’t DIII football be coed?

There are – and have been – girls playing high school and even college football. Two seasons ago, Holley Mangold (who weighed 315, bench pressed 264 and squatted 525) was certainly not undersized or under-abled to compete for Alter High School in Ohio (they lost the championships by one point).

Mangold played the on the offensive line. But not everyone on the field needs to be as big or as strong as she is. At Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania, 5-6, 129-lb No. 93 is the Dutchmen’s kicker, Brittany Ryan (see photo). And at Trotwood-Madison High School in Ohio, No. 85 (nickname: Ocho Cinco) is 5-2, 114 lb. senior placeholder and wide receiver Kryshana Pierce.

Football is a spectacularly appealing sport with too much of a “No Girls Allowed” culture. It doesn’t need to be that way — especially in DIII.

By Laura Pappano

In a sports culture in which OBP, ERA, PR, SOG, QB Ratings (among others) rule the landscape, Linda Jean Carpenter and R. Vivian Acosta track stats you won’t catch among box scores, but that have served a generation: Women’s access to play and power in college athletics.

“There isn’t a Congressional hearing or scholarly work on the issue of women in coaching and administration that doesn’t cite their research,” Donna Lopiano, former CEO of the Women’s Sports Foundation, shared in an e-mail.

Beginning in 1977 using pencil and paper (the second year they switched to IBM punch cards and now use  actual modern computers), Acosta and Carpenter have made a career of surveying Division I, II, and III colleges to record women’s participation on the field and in coaching and administrative suites. They have tallied numbers and types of women’s teams, percentages of female head coaches plus paid and unpaid assistant coaches, and athletic directors. In 1994 (in a nod to an increasingly complex college sports structure) they added percentages of females in sports information director and athletic trainer roles.

In other words, these two women whose own sports experiences – as players, coaches, researchers, administrators, professors (Acosta has a PhD and Carpenter a PhD and law degree) – could shape a compelling narrative of the rise of women’s athletics, have through their data done something even more valuable: Made concrete the wins and losses for the women’s sports movement since the Title IX era began in earnest.

Their longitudinal data, said Lopiano, has provided “critical factual evidence of the absence of progress in opening the highest status and highest paying coaching position to females in college sports.” She says “there is no comparable work like it in the field” and is why “the advocates of Title IX continue to use and depend on this data.”

The project began — as many important things do — by chance.

Shortly after the passage of Title IX,  Acosta was waiting to speak at a conference organized by the AIAW, the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (it governed women’s college sports until the NCAA took over in the 1980s).

“I was eavesdropping and I heard someone say, ‘Have you noticed how many men are coaching women’s teams?’ and someone else said, ‘Yeah. Has a study been done on this?’ – and a little light bulb went off,” Acosta recalled last month during an interview at the lakeside home she shares with Carpenter.  “I went to Linda and said, ‘We can do this. All we have to do is count!’”

Counting, of course, was (and is) a mammoth task that takes months. Even today, while they use computers to sort and tally data, all the surveys are sent out on paper because, says Acosta, “people expect it and it takes them 10 minutes.” The next round of surveys will be mailed in a few weeks (see photo above of Carpenter and Acosta in Carpenter’s office with surveys). They collect two year’s worth of data each time and make their reports available for free online. Click here for the most recent.

In it, Acosta and Carpenter note that 2008 marked the “highest ever participation by female athletes” with 9010 women’s teams, or an average of 8.65 per school (most popular women’s team offered by colleges, in order: Basketball, volleyball, soccer, cross country, softball).

At the same time, however, the representation of females as coaches of women’s teams “remains low.” When Title IX was passed in 1972, over 90 percent of head coaches of women’s teams were women. Today, it’s 42.8 percent. A few other results of note:

–  21.3 percent of athletic directors are women, up from 18.6 in 2006
–  Only 27.3 percent of head athletic trainers are females
–  Only 11.3 percent of head sports information directors are female
–  Only 2-3 percent of head coaches of male teams are female (while 57.2 percent of women’s teams have a male head coach)

Check out Acosta & Carpenter’s article in Academe (journal of the American Association of University Professors), looking back on 37 years since the passage of Title IX.

Coming Tomorrow:  Q & A with Acosta and Carpenter

Last spring, an op-ed published in the Christian Science Monitor — “The Price Gap Between Men and Women’s Basketball Tickets is Madness” — drew a slew of responses and comments, including some that were awfully hostile about the prospect of women’s play being 1) worthwhile watching and 2)  just as compelling competition as male play, and 3) certainly not worth disrespecting by enforcing a tradition of simply charging less because players are female.

The point here is not to rehash the old debate, but to deliver on the promise of a full study. A part of the Wellesley Centers for Women Working Paper Series, I have collaborated with methodolgist Allison J. Tracy, PhD, to produce a paper, “Ticket Office Sexism: The Gender Gap in Pricing for NCAA Division I Basketball.” We reviewed the ticket prices for men’s and women’s DI basketball for last season and considered the entry fees charged by 292 institutions at various seating levels, including season ticket packages and single game tickets.

An excerpt from the abstract:

Our results showed significant gender gaps at every pricing and seating level with colleges charging a premium for male play. This gap persisted even among teams identified by the NCAA as top-ranked women’s teams with large fan followings. Analysis of attendance figures further showed that the gender differential in price across schools is not accounted for by differences in attendance. Because athletics, and particularly college basketball, have an increasingly prominent cultural profile, the practice of effectively de-valuing women on the court has implications off the court as well. The results support the broader contention that women athletes – as women in traditionally male arenas – continue to face institutional discrimination that is camouflaged as sensible economic practice.

A key point: While sale of college basketball tickets appears on the surface to be no different than the sale of a ticket to an NBA game or other professional sport, such an assumption ignores the fact that colleges do not operate as pure businesses but are non-profits receiving public benefits and, in some cases, even public institutions supported by taxpayer dollars.

As Gordon C. Winston, professor of economics at Williams College, has argued, “the standard economic intuition and analogies, built on an understanding of profit-making firms and the economic theory that supports it, are likely to be a poor guide to understanding higher education.” (Winston, Gordon C. “Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 13, No. 1 (Winter 1999): 13-36).

The paper is available for a fee by clicking here.

By Lauren Taylor

Let’s get it out up front: No other team has put out a strong enough showing during the NCAA DI Tournament (or season) to make me doubt that the “purple haze” we’ve fallen into won’t continue.

I’d like to see another team besides Northwestern come out on top, (better for the game), but that’s personal wish – not professional opinion.

Here’s what they’ve got: Every player in a Northwestern jersey can run and gun, throw and catch and understand the game thanks to Kelly Amonte Hiller. She’s crafted a team whose balance is its greatest asset, and, ultimately, that’s what makes them unbeatable.

There’s not one girl to face guard; there are seven. There’s not one lock-off defender; there are seven. They are a team with players who take turns leading by example, and that quality — perhaps more than any other — has made them the dynasty they have become.

Northwestern may be a runaway favorite, but there is a lot to see when they take the field.

Five stats to watch for:

1.   How many goals does Northwestern manage to run up on Penn?

( In their game against Princeton, the Wildcats established a new program record with 373 goals scored this season.  That’s already 12 more than the championship team of two seasons ago).

2.  How many passes does Penn drop?

(My guess is will be under 10 in 60 minutes. Unreal. So consistent).

3.  How many aggressive double teams does Northwestern throw at its opponents?

(I bet more than 10 in 60 minutes. Also unreal. So high energy.)

4.   How many draw control does Penn’s Emma Spiro comes up with?

(She had 46 through the end of the regular season, dominating the Ivy League in that stat. But how does she fare against the Wildcats, also know for their aggression in the circle?)

5.    How many turnovers do North Carolina and Maryland commit?

(My prediction: It will be high on both ends, because of the hyper-aggressive run and gun game. Compare that state with Penn and you’ll be shocked these three teams have made it to the same point in the tournament.)

Lauren Taylor, who will receive her Master’s in Public Health from Yale on Monday, is assistant coach for the Yale Women’s Lacrosse team. As a player for Yale, she earned three All-America selections and was a four-time first team All-Ivy League selection.

Round one of the women’s NCAA Division 1 lacrosse tournament offered zero upsets, but expect excitement this weekend when top teams meet in the quarterfinals (championships next weekend at Towson University in Maryland).

This is college sports — and anything can happen.

Breaking it down:

Number one seed Northwestern wants to repeat (they’re national champs four years running).  Under Kelly Amonte Hiller, the Wildcats get credit for revolutionizing the women’s game. Coach Hiller recruits pure athletes and molds them into cogs in the well-oiled machine that is her Northwestern dynasty.  Every year the Cats lose seemingly irreplaceable leaders, but young guns step up and file seamlessly into the lineup. Do note, though, highly-touted player Hannah Nielsen suffered a knee injury a few weeks ago. Bottom line: The balance of this team is tough to beat.

Northwestern will face perennial power, Princeton. Princeton, which long sat atop the Ivy League, is lately coming in second behind rival Penn.  The difference between the two programs? Princeton plays a more emotional, flow-state game. They’ll go up, they’ll go down, but it’s always interesting. Holly McGarvie (Sr., Midfield) is the team’s heart and soul, and her intensity serves as a barometer for the play of the entire Princeton squad.

Conversely, the Penn Quakers play a more deliberate and methodical game. Nothing about them is particularly special, but everything is rock solid. Penn dropped a surprise game to Stanford towards the end of the regular season, but that may have been the loss they needed to refocus for the NCAA Tournament. Their first round game with MAAC Champs Fairfield was closer than most expected (10-8), but a win is a win — and they got it. This is a team that has grown accustomed to winning, and that’s provided a real mental advantage.

Duke, North Carolina and Maryland are the three ACC teams still standing. No surprises there: these are classic women’s lacrosse powerhouses.  All three programs are built on the backs of blue chip recruits and long-tenured coaches. The three all play some variation on a “run and gun” game. They’ll push fast breaks, take a lot of shots, make a lot of mistakes, but hopefully win on the merit of players’ speed, stick work, and natural intuition. There’s little pre-conceived about game plans, so they live and die by the decision-making on the field. Sometimes that leadership comes through and they win big. Other times they fold unexpectedly under pressure.

Syracuse and Notre Dame are the two Big East teams rounding out the quarterfinal bracket.  Each has been making noise the past few years — Syracuse under the esteemed Gary Gait and Notre Dame under Tracy Coyne.  The Syracuse-Maryland matchup will be particularly interesting because Coach Gait arrived at Syracuse after a long stint as an assistant at Maryland (under Cindy Timchal). He knows the Maryland game plan well (he helped engineer it in the 1990s and early 2000s). Think of this game as a contest of old and new Gary Gait philosophies.  Maryland has more talent, but Gait is a genius. He knows the Terrapins can be fragile under pressure and will coach his Orange to push all the right buttons.

Notre Dame’s matchup with North Carolina is the biggest question mark of the bracket. Notre Dame’s potent attack lead by Jillian Byers (Sr., Midfield) will have a tough go against a Tarheels defense lead by Amber Falcone (Sr., Defense). Byers is as good as attackers come, but Falcone has seen it all playing a tough ACC schedule for the past four years. Both are Tewaaraton Trophy (lacrosse’s Heisman) finalists, and the two will play on USA national teams (Amber, World Cup Team and Jillian, Developmental team) this summer.

My picks for the final four: Northwestern, Penn, UNC, Maryland.

Lauren Taylor, who will receive her Master’s in Public Health from Yale this month, is assistant coach for the Yale Women’s Lacrosse team. As a player for Yale, she earned three All-America selections and was a four-time first team All-Ivy League selection.

Whether or not a judge rules that Quinnipiac University has violated Title IX by cutting its Women’s Volleyball team is less newsworthy than what we learned in court today.

That is, coaches manipulated rosters to meet Title IX requirements with men’s teams dropping players (and women’s teams padding rosters with players who wouldn’t get uniforms, equipment, playing time, or be able to travel with the team) in time for the school to submit required reports to the U.S. Department of Education showing they met gender equity rules.

Quinnipiac, like many colleges, chooses to demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting the proportionality prong of regulations. This means that the percentage of males and females in the student body must be reflected in the percentages of male and female athletes.

Increasingly, schools have used “roster management” as a tool to do this, meaning they will set target roster sizes for each sport to make numbers add up. This approach – we are hearing — is vulnerable to cheating.

Quinnipiac softball coach Germaine Fairchild, testified that she had been ordered to carry 25 players on her roster when she would normally have 17 to 19. Because these additional players were essentially only for compliance purposes (she did not receive extra budget to support their participation), most of them quit and by spring she could trim her roster to a manageable and appropriate 17.

“The number of female athletes receiving actual benefits was 17, not 26,” she testified, according to news reports.

Such manipulation of roster slots is outrageous – but likely not new and not limited to Quinnipiac University.

Two years ago, USA Today did a story highlighting the discrepancies between proportionality numbers as reported to the NCAA and to the U.S. Department of Education.

Unfortunately, the DOE collects, but doesn’t scrutinize the data it demands (or apparently care if it looks different from the NCAA numbers). This is a matter that needs attention – otherwise all the happy talk about the “benefits of Title IX” are merely camouflage for old-style gender bias.